Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Ian Gibson (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 25 April 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Broads Authority Bill (By Order).


Broads Authority Bill (By Order)

I meant that none of us wants those signed agreements to go to court. Legal advice would be taken before they were signed so that both parties went into the agreement having decided that it was the best way forward, subject to modification if necessary. I hope that we would not then have to go to court, because that would make things hard and fast. As such agreements are not on the face of the Bill, they could be modified by mutual agreement, which is important. We can make things absolutely legally binding, but that could mean that everything done on the broads ended up in the High Court, which is the last thing we want when reaching agreement with yachting associations and so on. We want people to feel that they have the right to explore the broads without a boat following them everywhere. We want them to have a sense of adventure, but with the knowledge that people who know what has happened and what could happen have drawn up agreements. I do not want there to be arguments about whether the agreements are legally binding; I do not know whether they are, but I do not want them to go before the courts. At present, things look good and there is agreement on both sides. The authority believes that the provisions are reasonable and proportionate, and take proper account of individual rights. The Bill was built on a thorough consultation exercise and the agreement with boating interests has produced consensus and balance. The Bill’s objective of public safety is a legitimate ground for qualifying what might otherwise be an unhindered public right. I have already mentioned other restrictions on what people are allowed to do, such as seat belts and speed limits. The other main object of the Bill is to modernise the authority by updating some provisions in the 1988 Act; they were relevant and important then, but the time is ripe to review and update them. The Bill would provide for the removal of the requirement for a separate navigation account dealing with navigation income and expenditure. The authority feels that the provision has proved administratively bureaucratic, and cuts across its aim for an integrated approach to the management of the broads. There will be a requirement that navigation expenditure be similar to navigation income—the toll that people pay for all the changes in navigation. There are arguments to be had about where the money goes, because the intentions of the Government and the authority are not necessarily the same. However, the authority can hardly be blamed for wanting more money from the Government for a separate account. Of course it may have to dream on, but we should support it so that it can ensure that navigation is safe for the public. The tolls will be minor—about £20 or £30 a year.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
459 c972-3 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Access Boats Boating Finance Land Insurance Inland waterways Floods Navigation Nature conservation Parish and town councils Norfolk National parks Safety Rivers Suffolk Dredging Broads Authority Norfolk and Suffolk Broads
Legislation
Broads Authority Bill 2006-07 to 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk